This invokes some ideas of p-adic numbers. If Sabine is right and superdeterminism is a global law it would require a single consistent algorithm for solving p-adic problems, which are equivalent to Diophantine equations. Matiyasevich proved a variant of the Godel theorem which disproved this, which is also HIlbert's 10th problem. As a result only local solutions are possible. If Sabine wants superdeterminism, then fine, but it means different observers will interpret reality in fundamentally different, even contradictory, ways. We are seeing something like this with recent demonstrations of Wigner's friend thought experiment. The Frauchiger-Renner work showed how Wigner's friend thought experiment precluded reality if one assumed local hidden variables. This occurs with superdeterminism as well.
LC On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 7:25:58 AM UTC-6 [email protected] wrote: > Sabine Hossenfelder recently posted this video on Youtube, this is my > comment: > > Does Superdeterminism save Quantum Mechanics? Or does it kill free will > and destroy science? <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytyjgIyegDI> > > I strongly agree with Sabine Hossenfelder that "free will" is incoherent > nonsense, but I strongly disagree with her advocacy of superdeterminism. > Even if the laws of physics were as deterministic as Newton thought they > were and you knew all of them you still couldn't make a prediction unless > you knew the initial conditions, that's why I think "superdeterminism" is a > pretty good name. When scientists talk about plain old vanilla style > Newtonian "determinism" they're only talking about the laws of physics, but > superdeterminism means more than that, it's also talking about initial > conditions. Occam's Razor says that if 2 theories agree with observations > equally well then the theory with the fewest assumptions (*NOT* the > fewest outcomes) is the one to be preferred. It would be absolutely > impossible for superdeterminism to contain more assumptions than it does, > depending on if the universe is infinite or not and if space and time are > quantized or continuous, superdeterminism demands either an astronomical > number to an astronomical power of independent assumptions, or more likely > an infinite number of such assumptions. You can get more out of a good > theory then you put into it, in fact that's what a "good theory" means. but > that would be impossible with superdeterminism because it requires an > infinite input. > > Superdeterminism violates Occam's Razor just as badly as the God > hypothesis does because they both need to invoke infinity in their > assumptions. Superdeterminism assumes that out of the (probably) infinite > number of states the universe could've been in at the time of the Big Bang > it was actually in the one and only one specific state that would prevent > experimenters on the planet Earth 13.8 billion years later from ever > performing a simple experiment that would unequivocally show that the world > is indeed deterministic, the God hypothesis assumes the existence of an > infinitely powerful infinitely intelligent being. By contrast the Many > Worlds Theory only makes one assumption, Schrodinger's Equation means what > it says. So Many Worlds wins. > > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e310d4d9-9996-409b-a67a-102375251c0cn%40googlegroups.com.
